The casting director is also in charge of making smart choices, not always the best choice. Zendaya is hot right now, everyone loves her, shes huge on social media and especially big with the young people who arent super into comic books. If you honestly believe that Zendaya was the best actress to audition then you are sadly mistaken.

Yep, and how many years ago did I say that rule was instituted? That's right, 75 years ago. They added that rule and the character of Robin specifically because those actions made the character too dark and turned readers off.

It looks like you conveniently didn't read the sentence after the one you quoted where I said that I know this is pre-rule.

No he didn't. He led police to him afterwards but KGBeast had already escaped. Here's the page from two issues later.

Another writer retconned it. I'd argue the original story was intended to just leave him.

Elseworlds, not cannon. Also widely regarded as the worst Batman writing in history (but maybe BvS could give it a run for it's money).

Here you dismiss something for being elseword, yet we are discussing BvS... a non canon version of Batman. At no point in this discussion did we agree to only use canon material. Nor would it makes sense to since we are not discussing an in canon form of Batman.

Yep but take a look at that scene. He tells Darkseid that what he's about to do goes against everything that he is and that it'll taint Batman forever but he has to sacrifice himself to save billions.

Still does it.

I assume you mean Burton's Batman?

No I mean "The Cult" a story from 1988.

Elseworlds, not canon.

Doesn't matter, we aren't discussing canon Batman.

Again, we're talking about the character in canon.

We literally are not. BvS is not in canon. If you can accept all these examples because these are not in canon, there should be no reason for you not to accept Batfleck killing because it too is not in canon. And would not be regardless of whether or not he killed.

Yeah, I managed to get through three pages of stuff from pre-1940 before I gave up. If you want to discuss specific examples then post them.

No it isnt. Back in the 1940's he literally hung a man from his plane, kicked a man in the neck so hard it snapped, and threw a guy into a vat of acid. Not to mention countless other kills. Admittedly however that was early Batman, before the rule, but still there are more recent ones.

In Batman no. 420 from '88, Batman left the KGBeast in a cell underground to starve to death.

In All Star Batman I think in '06, Batman throws an incendiary grenade into a group of thugs and let's them burn.

In Final Crisis, Batman shoots Darkseid with the intention of killing him. There is some grey area here as Darkseid isn't human.

Back in '87 Action Comics, I think he stabs a woman through the back with a wooden stake.

In The Cult '88, Batman guns down a man with a machine gun and uses the batmobile to kill a guy.

Hell in the Dark Knight Returns, which we both know BvS was influenced by, he guns down a guy who is holding a kid hostage.

Not to mention all the times he has killed in the movies BEFORE BvS.

So I think it's safe to say that it isn't a misconception.

Edit: Check this out, I found a site that lists all the times Batman killed in the comics.

I suppose so, but I for one am not as hard set on his "one rule" I don't think that's what makes batman, batman. Plenty of other heroes don't kill, he's not unique in that. There is so much more to the character that I don't mind a different, darker, interpretation. Hell, throughout that 75 years Batman has killed a ton of people, way before BvS.

While I agree it would be nice to see the other reasons for his break. I move forward with the assumption I will see those in the Standalone, and accepting that even if there weren't any other reasons it would make sense in the medium of film. You don't have the luxury of having a bunch of different stories leading up to a big character change. In film you only get like 1 or 2, else people get bored. So if we get to the Standalone and Jason's death is the only thing then I think that'll be fine. I just look at the Movies as their own continuum inspired by other stories, instead of the visual representation of the existing universe.

This movie wasnt supposed to explain his entire back story. It's not his movie alone. And obviously DC plans to release their movies outside of chronologically order. I firmly believe all of our questions about how Batman got to be the man we saw will be answered elsewhere in the DCCU.

If I am right, and that is the case, then I think BvS will be remembered as a great movie. But as of right now it seems confusing and unearned. As long as we accept that this is not a fresh Batman but a hardened one who's story we have yet to discover then I think we will all be looking over the whole of DCCU favorably.

The movie had a lot of ground to cover, and I'm sure they had to sacrifice some things. And we did see that from the little of Alfred we had. I'm sure there will be more of a journey to it all in the Standalone.

That was the point. What we saw was a Batman who was pushed passed his "one rule". I don't understand why people can't see that. I would be surprised if Batman in Suicide Squad/Justice League/Standalone kills people.

"Brush your pinky every so slightly with the surface of the Wine. Circle the edge of the glass so that it vibrates and produces a perfectly crafted melody, consisting of a single note. Then just, listen. You can almost drink in the resonance."